Tag: religion

Categories
culture National politics

Politics and Marriage

I was invited to share my views on political issues relating to marriage and was pointed to DefendMarriage.org as a reference point. I think the issues relating to marriage and the politics surrounding marriage (gay rights and abortion rights are listed in the invitation and states rights are a part of the political discussion as well) really illustrate that there is more to this issue than simply answering the question of what defines “marriage” in our society. The following statement on traditional marriage from defendmarriage.org really outlines the socially conservative position on the surface issue of defining marriage:

Marriage between man and woman is the time-honored foundation of the institution of the family. This legally recognized and protected union is intended to be life-long, preceded by sexual abstinence and followed by absolute fidelity and loyalty. Such marriage offers security, benefits, and joys that no other relationship can, including children born and nurtured in a home of love and total commitment. Marriage is the institution universally sanctioned by civilization to ensure that children receive a full measure of parental love, resources and attention.

I fully agree with that definition of what marriage is. The question that I keep asking myself in order to define the parameters of the deeper issues is why, and in what ways should the law “recognize and protect” marriage. If we return to a proper protection of individual rights many of the reasons used to justify stretching that legal definition of marriage evaporate. If two people engage in a homosexual lifestyle and establish a loving and committed relationship then the government has no business interfering with hospital visitation rights etc. Our society gains nothing by infringing upon those individual rights.

On other questions, such as tax breaks and insurance benefits there should be no issue. Individuals can will their property to anyone regardless of family connection and the government should never have a primary right of ownership that is functionally implied through inheritance taxes. The same holds true with tax breaks for married couples – there should be no need for tax breaks because we should not have an income tax (which again implies that the government owns the money and simply allows individuals to a portion of what they contribute to the GNP). If we had no income tax there would be no tax benefit for being married.

As for health care benefits for families, family insurance policies would essentially be a type of small-group policy. Insurance companies could offer policies to match any kind of group whose business they want.

With regard to adoption, that is a social service that should not be run by the state. Instead, adoption should be a matter that is resolved between willing biological parents and individuals that are willing and to whom the natural parents chose to transfer the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. No need to worry about biological children because homosexual couples have voluntarily chosen a lifestyle that does not produce biological children. (Even those who argue that homosexuality is an inborn identity must recognize that those individuals may choose not to engage in the lifestyle.)

By removing those issues from the arsenal of those who agitate for recognition of gay marriage, the discussion would be reduced to the core issue of what constitutes marriage. That issue is not primarily a political issue, it is a cultural/theological issue. The government is only responsible to ensure that individuals on both sides of the issue do not have their rights trampled by others.

Categories
life

Good vs Evil

An interesting thought struck me today as my mind was churning in the background without any particular direction. The conflict between “good” and “evil” is the conflict between accountability based on personal choice and coercion or limitation based on the choices of others. Put another way, it is the difference between an opt-in situation and an opt-out situation. This seems to be true whether you are talking about the religious good vs evil (Christ vs Satan for example) or literary good vs evil (The Rebel Alliance vs The Empire from Star Wars for example).

Admittedly my thinking here is not fully developed, but I thought it would be worth putting out for feedback, and as a reminder to myself to pursue the topic further in my own thinking.

Categories
life

Answering A Call

Bob Burney claims to be an informed non-expert as he offers Mormons A Plea for Candid Truth Telling. (Funny, leaders of the LDS church are encouraging the same thing.) The charge seems simple and fair-enough – “You can believe anything you want. . . But tell the truth! If you believe it, be proud of it—don’t try to hide it.” He takes exception to church statements that seem to borrow the language of evangelicals. I would contend that there is a simple explanation for such borrowed language and it’s not so sinister as the deception he seems to infer from those statements. Basically I would ask Mr. Burney if he would expect to be more effective communicating in Moscow by speaking Russian or by speaking Cantonese.

He claims that the church has made a concerted effort to remake its image since 2002 – before which:

I remember a time when it was common for Mormons to be offended if you called them Christian.

Admittedly my public memory only goes back a couple of decades (not counting my childhood when I was blissfully unaware of much outside my immediate world), but that is well before 2002 and I don’t ever recall a time when members of the church would be offended at being called Christian. A more accurate assessment of this very real effort by the LDS church to refine its public image stems from two factors. One, church leaders became aware/concerned with the fact that there were altogether too many members of the church who mistakenly identified more with Joseph Smith than with Jesus Christ. This led people outside our faith to naturally conclude that we worshiped our first prophet.

The second factor was that in 1995 Gordon B. Hinckley became our new prophet and brought with him a lifetime of experience in public affairs. Under his direction the church organization became much more media savvy and conscious of how other people perceived the church. Under his direction they used the publicity of the Olympics as a platform to correct misconceptions. With the current interest in the church stemming from Mitt Romney’s candidacy they are once again trying to make the most of the moment.

As for the specific doctrine in question – the answer given by the church to the charge that Mormons view Satan and Jesus as brothers was apparently unsatisfactory because rather than stating “Yes we do, what of it,” the response was meant to indicate that this apparently heretical idea is not inconsistent with Protestant scripture. Christ repeatedly called himself the Son of God. Isaiah says that Satan had fallen from heaven.

As far as I can tell, the idea that men can become like God is the most radical doctrine of the church (at least from an evangelical perspective – I couldn’t say about other perspectives) but members of the LDS church are not alone in thinking this. C.S. Lewis made this same statement in Mere Christianity (p. 205-6) and he had no connection with the church. (By the way, the idea is not the we make ourselves into gods or that it just comes with time, it is that God has the power and interest to make us into beings like Himself through the Atonement of Christ. Whether you agree or not, it is not so self-aggrandizing as some people make it sound.)

I don’t mean to suggest that the leaders and other public figures in the church handle all these inquiries perfectly – they’re only human – but it would be nice if all the theological pundits out there could ascribe less-than-sinister motives to their every effort.

Categories
life meta

One More Dimension

As I search for things to write here I always hope to convey a perspective that is broad enough to invite discussion. One of my major goals in writing is to receive feedback on my positions and ideas that will help me to refine my positions and my thinking process. Of course I strive to create a profile of myself here that is consistent with my own values. Part of that has been that I try to put away most thoughts that are primarily political in nature on Sundays so that I may focus y attentions on more spiritual/religious/family oriented topics. This has often put me in a bind because I don’t want to dilute the focus of my writings. That is why the day of the week most likely to not have anything written is Sunday.

When I do write on Sundays it has generally been generic in nature and not specific to my own Latter-day Saint background. Today I read the commencement address given by Elder M. Russell Ballard at Brigham Young University – Hawaii. He invites the graduates, and all church members, to make their voices heard in the many discussions about the church that are taking place online.

There are conversations going on about the Church constantly. Those conversations will continue whether or not we choose to participate in them. But we cannot stand on the sidelines while others, including our critics, attempt to define what the Church teaches. While some conversations have audiences in the thousands or even millions, most are much, much smaller.  But all conversations have an impact on those who participate in them. Perceptions of the Church are established one conversation at a time.

As I read that I realized that my efforts to keep my writing more broadly appealing had resulted in me stunting my voice online by whitewashing a key component of my perspective from the voice I have projected. Many (possibly all) of my readers are aware of my firm convictions of the Book of Mormon and the LDS church but I have decided that leaving that part of my character and life in the background projects an incomplete perspective on what I am thinking which denies people the opportunity to comment on whatever part of my thinking is based on my theological perspective.

I have no intention of turning this into a Mormon blog about politics but I expect that my LDS perspective will be more transparent and might be altogether naked in Sunday posts that are non-political in nature. It also means that I will be more likely to comment on religiously themed posts that I read elsewhere which I have sometimes avoided rather than “dilute my focus” online.

Categories
politics

Good Advice

Political columnists don’t generally offer advice that is generally applicable to life. One exception to that comes from Doug Giles (writing about Larry Craig):

To heck with public opinion and what people will think. Focus rather on the inevitable mano-a-mano that you will one day have with God (and He can’t be buffaloed). Let that pending appointment guide thee to get real with yourself, your family, and the public.

Imagine what life would be like if everyone took that attitude when making decisions.

Rather surprisingly this ties into something I thought of in Sunday School today. The lesson was on obedience:

An angel of the Lord appeared unto Adam, saying: Why dost thou offer sacrifices unto the Lord? And Adam said unto him: I know not, save the Lord commanded me. (Moses 5:6)

My thought on that was that Adam remembered what had happened the last time he disobeyed. He did not intend to be coerced into disobedience, as Eve had been, just because he did not know the reason for the commandment.

Categories
life

Teaching and Learning

I have heard it said that you learn more by teaching something than just by learning or doing it. As I was preparing today for a lesson I caught some new insights into why that is. For one thing, the time taken to prepare what you are going to teach is much longer than the time that will be taken by a student in the lesson. Another factor that makes this true is that what you end up teaching in the actual instructional setting is not precisely the same as what you had prepared in advance. The teacher benefits from the preparation as well as anything new that comes in the lesson delivery. The students only get whatever came during the delivery time.

Categories
life

Seeds, Trees, and Fruit

I read Alma chapter 32 again this week and the analogy of the gospel as a seed. I have always loved the imagery of cultivating the tree of Christlike attributes in our lives through the exercise of faith. As I read through this time it struck me how appropriate the tree imagery was because, like a tree, it can take years of care and nourishment before we truly see the fruits of our efforts even though we will see the evidence that the seed is good, as the tree sprouts, long before we receive the fruit that can truly nourish us. Too often we talk about the gospel as if it is always nourishing to us. I think that it is more accurate to say that the hope of the fruit of salvation is what nourished us early on before we start to receive the fruits of our own tree. Prior to that time any nourishment we receive must come from the fruit of trees which others have long nourished.

The other thing that occurred to me relates to the way we talk about various religions. We may acknowledge that various churches have some truth but we make it very clear that this is “the one true church.” How is it that a bad seed can produce good fruit? We are told that it cannot. This has always bothered me since it seemed that every seed which did not lead to the true church must be a bad seed despite the acknowledgment that other churches are not devoid of truth and I have seen good fruits in the lives of many outside our church.

My newfound realization was that all seeds which bear fruit are good. This is similar to the common Protestant assertion that any Christian church is good. I may prefer my apples to your pears, but I admit that they are both good, nourishing fruit. The difference between our belief and this flavor-of-the-month approach is that we believe that our fruit is actually superior to the competing varieties. What I realized is that while that may be true, we would probably do well to emphasize that just because there is a superior offering available does not make the other options less nourishing. This realization might also help us to admit that more nourishing does not always mean more sweet.

Categories
life

Look to the Foundation

I’m not sure what started this train of thought in my mind, but I have been thinking about how things get misrepresented in public understanding. I’m sure that makes no sense to lots of people, but perhaps some examples may illustrate what I mean.

I have often heard someone excuse something they wanted to do by exclaiming that we live in a free country. What does it mean to live in a free country? Examine the foundation – in this case that would be the Constitution.

Currently we are hearing more about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS church) in the news largely because we have a church member running for President. Once that discussion gets started there are many people inside and outside the LDS church who are eager to elaborate on the beliefs and practices of the church. It is easy to bring up the practice of polygamy in early church history. Unfortunately, we always talk about this past practice in the light of current social values and circumstances rather than in the context of the times when it was practiced.

Another topic for discussion is the history of blacks holding the priesthood. Once again there is no mention that at the time that practice began, in the 1830’s, the belief that blacks were not equal to whites in the eyes of God was quite widespread. Those who argue that other churches gave their priesthood to blacks never consider that they also had segregated congregations which would almost require that they give pastoral authority to blacks for the black congregations. The LDS church has never had segregated congregations. The only segregation of congregations is segregation of geography. In other words we have all white congregations in all white areas and all black congregations in all black areas. So long as there is a mixture of races within the geographic boundaries of the congregation there is a mixture of races in the congregation – possible exceptions would be if there was a language rather than a geographic segregation.

The other thing that is never considered is that other churches give their priesthood based on education. Those colleges who receive federal money and provide theological degrees would have been required to give degrees to black students even if they didn’t like the idea. Maybe we need to be careful to look at those different foundations to realize that we are comparing apples to oranges.

If you desire to know about the beliefs of the LDS church you have to look to the foundation which is the Articles of Faith. Whatever other information you might receive, whether from members of the LDS church or not, should be tested against that foundation.

UPDATE 5/30/2007: I just found this column on candidate religions as a political consideration (yes, it was focused on Mitt Romney and the LDS church). I think that my recommendation to look to the foundation is more valuable when investigating the religion from a theological perspective, but the guidelines in that column seem just right for evaluating a religion from a social or political perspective.

Categories
life

More Than a Hero

As I have continued to think about the heroes after my post yesterday I have tried in my own mind to clarify the definition of hero more fully. One thought that I had was that a hero was someone you could emulate – someone you could hope to follow or who you could hope to become. Another thought was that the ultimate hero in my life is my Savior.

The moment that I tried to add Christ mentally into my list of heroes I encountered a problem. While a hero is someone that I would wish to emulate – and Jesus certainly qualifies there – Christ presents a problem in that all of the people who I might classify as heroes I have hope that I could do the things that they have done to be heroes to me. With Christ that is only partially true. I can hope to care for others as He did and strive to obey the commandments of God as He did, but His heroism goes well beyond anything that I could ever hope to do. He gave a gift to me and the world that I could never hope to give – the opportunity to return to our heavenly home. All the good that I could ever do would pale in comparison. More importantly, all the good I could ever do would be worthless if He did not also give the gift that He gave to the world.

He has thus separated Himself from all others who I might call heroes because whatever is good and worthy of emulation in them I could hope to duplicate in my life. My conclusion is that there must be a separate category for Christ. Either He is the Hero and all others could be classified as models, or else they are heroes and He has a designation all His own – perhaps LORD.

Categories
life

The Pope Fixes A Broken Doctrine

All I could think was, “wow, he got that one right,” when I read that the Pope renounced the doctrine of limbo. The idea that infants who die without baptism cannot go to heaven is offensive to common sense if you believe in a loving God. Limbo seems like nothing more than hell without personal responsibility. This all came about because of “Vatican studies that said there were ‘serious’ grounds that such souls could go to heaven, rather than exist between heaven and hell.”

Little had I realized that Limbo was actually an improvement in status from what had been taught before then – that infants dying without baptism were consigned to hell.